User talk:Koveras Alvane
Welcome! Hello and welcome to the Conspiracy Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the MediaWiki:Welcome-message-user page. There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. * ' ' is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help. * Questions? You can ask on the associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page! * Need more help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site and links to pages to help you learn how to edit. Otherwise, you can ask me if you have any questions. * Please every time you edit, so that we can recognize an established user. Please be aware that even you don't, THEY are now watching you, too. We are really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! -- Koveras Alvane (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 :It's alive! :D --Koveras Alvane 12:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Ad free Hi! Would you like this wiki to be ad-free? I'm looking for wikis to be part of a new program which would remove all ads from the wiki for $19.95/month. If you are interested, please be visit here to sign up. if you have any questions! - sannse (Help Forum) (blog) 21:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks, but no. :) --Koveras Alvane 22:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC) Can I have Ops? Pretty please. Zana Dark :That will depend on your performance in the next two weeks. :) --Koveras Alvane 20:31, May 23, 2011 (UTC) ::I am looking forward to the challenge. Thank you for entertaining my crazy notions. Zana Dark 05:03, May 24, 2011 (UTC) Roger Craig Should there be a story of Roger Craig of the Kenendy page? :No idea who Roger Craig is but if you think he is relevant to the conspiracy, sure, add it. --Koveras Alvane 08:37, May 20, 2012 (UTC) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Xb_hOOPaE Here he is. :Saw .45 slug in Dealey Plaza — with piece of Kennedy's head :Heard shrill whistle, saw Oswald run from direction of Depository and get into Rambler station wagon on Elm Street with dark complected man :Saw three hulls in Sniper's Nest — lined up an inch apart, all pointing in the same direction. Click here for illustration from video "Two Men in Dallas" :Saw inscription "7.65 Mauser" on recovered rifle :Confronted Oswald in Fritz' office — Oswald said Rambler was Mrs. Paine's station wagon :There were attempts on his life ::As I said, add it. --Koveras Alvane 08:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC) I thought you'd find this interesting.... Hi Koveras Alvane, I just wanted to let you know about something that I thought you'd like. Don't ask how, but I managed to get access to Jack Ruby's phone records. Here are some of the people he called leading up to the assasination. Ruby and his brothers and sisters; Associates of Ruby, such as Lawrence Meyers, Alexander Gruber, and Lewis J. McWillie; Individuals called by Ruby in 1963, such as Barney Baker and Frank Goldstein; The companies which in 1963 employed Baker (Chicago Loop Auto Refinishing Co.) and Myers (Ero Manufacturing Co.); J.D. Tippit, the Dallas policeman slain by Lee Harvey Oswald after the President's assassination; Bruce and Karen Carlin (Mrs. Carlin worked for Jack Ruby under the stage name of Little Lynn); Carlos Marcello, an important organized crime figure; David Ferrie, an individual linked with both Marcello and Lee Harvey Oswald; Robert Maheu, Sam Giancana and John Roselli, individuals involved in CIA plots to assassinate Fidel Castro in the early 1960's; and "Dutz" Murret, the uncle of Lee Harvey Oswald. If you want the full message, give me a hoot, and you're free to use this information. Thx, IdealisticPrawn (talk) 04:42, July 27, 2012 (UTC) Help me for the truth I know that it has been werid that I been doing these websites on http://conspiracy.wikia.com/wiki/Kennedy_Assassination but the truth behind the murder of our 35th President is slowly vanishing into the powers of forces unknown for people are starting to believe the supporters of the Warren Report. And that the wikipedia is full of many lies. From the websites by these brave people who have searched for the truth, you will see that the truth is still out there. No crime in the history of the United States has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. On these websites(which I hope you change to their real names on the Kennedy page) you will learn about the legitimate facts related to this crime and discover that there really is a sane case for conspiracy... Join me in the search for the truth... http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/basicev.htm *http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html *Was Lee Harvey Oswald really guilty? by Gill Jesus. A website that proves Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of everything. *COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY by Michael T. Griffith *http://www.jfkhistory.com/: Legitimate facts related to the crime, supporting a case for conspiracy. *http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread615009/pg1: A look at the evidence proving conspiracy in the murder. *http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread710323/pg1: A look at the story of Lee Bowers. *http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread695975/pg1: A look at the man who was said to have been the killer of President Kennedy. :Gee, man, it's your president, you keep track of his life and death. I've never been to US, much less voted for presidents there. :D --Koveras Alvane (talk) 17:37, August 10, 2012 (UTC)= Why the Kenendy article needs to have these websites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS4LjgbqXhs&feature=plcp Dr. Cyril Wecht explains why the Kennedy conspiracy must be exposed. A Single Answer by Robert Harris Probably no crime in history has generated as much speculation, theorizing, and guesswork as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This article will not resolve all the questions surrounding the case, but it will provide an accurate answer to what is perhaps, the most fundamental and important of all the issues - the question of whether a single assassin could have been solely responsible for the fatal attack on President Kennedy. Surprisingly enough, that question will become answerable, due to one important characteristic of the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher Carcano rifle that apparently, belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. As the owner of one of these weapons, I can personally confirm that it is not as bad as some critics have made it out to be. It is reasonably accurate, and easy to fire. In the hands of even a mediocre shooter, and with a little practice, it could certainly be a deadly weapon, entirely capable of delivering a fatal bullet from the 90 yards that separated the alleged sniper's nest from the President, at the instant of the explosive head shot. But it does have one rather serious drawback. Originally designed in the 19th century, it has a very stiff bolt action. Even when well lubricated, the act of ejecting a spent cartridge and reloading is awkward and slow. Extensive testing, carried out by FBI firearms experts as well as by the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations), thirteen years later, confirmed that even expert riflemen generally required three or more seconds to reload, aim, and fire the weapon. By the way, this issue should not be confused with the ancient argument that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots in the roughly, five and one half seconds, the Warren Commission originally suggested. In more recent times, compelling arguments have been advanced, suggesting that the shots were spread out over a longer time span, more in the range of eight seconds. My own research suggests that this is probably correct, and that undoubtedly, this weapon was capable of producing three shots in such a time span. But the issue here is, whether shots were fired too closely together to have both come from this weapon. To answer that question, we must first determine what its limitations are. Fortunately, a great deal of testing has been done, to precisely resolve that question. The following is from the testimony of FBI firearms expert, Robert Frazier. As you look at the times required for these experts to fire three shots, remember that the first one doesn't count, since the weapon was already aimed and loaded when that shot was fired. Therefore, if a series of 3 shots was fired in say, 8 seconds we would conclude that it took an average of 4 seconds to cycle the weapon and fire each shot. Parenthetical comments are mine: Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, (4.5 seconds per shot) and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549. Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven. Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds. (3.5 seconds per shot) Mr. EISENBERG. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG. And your time, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER. For this series, was six seconds (three seconds per shot)..1 Three seconds then, was the very fastest time for any of them. Those tests were conducted on November 27, 1963, five days after the assassination. Despite the fact that the experts were certainly better riflemen than Oswald, their range of times was probably fairly realistic. But by March of 1964, the Warren Commission had concocted a theory that had Oswald firing all three shots in roughly, 5.5 seconds, considerably faster than any of the experts. So, on March 16, 1964, shortly before Frazier was scheduled to testify, he returned alone, to the firing range and after repeated attempts, apparently managed to get his shots off within a scant 4.6 seconds, thus bringing his average down to 2.3 seconds. As we already know, Frazier's desperate efforts to make the Warren Commission's shooting scenario credible, was not really necessary. But besides giving us an insight into the FBI's prosecutorial mindset, Frazier's final effort in 1964 provided us with a minimal time that was probably much lower than anything we would expect from Oswald or most other riflemen in the real world, and especially those who were more interested in hitting their quarry than in setting speedshooting records. Frazier described his final efforts in this part of his testimony, Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon. Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.2 Although we will accept the 2.3 seconds as our test standard, please remember that this number is extremely minimal. Even Warren Commission counsel, Wesley Liebeler expressed doubt that the 2.3 second standard was reasonable. This is from a memo he wrote on the subject in 1964, The figure of 2.3 as a minimum firing time for each shot used throughout chapter 3. The present discussion of rifle capability shows that expert riflemen could not fire the assassination weapon that fast. Only one of the experts managed to do so, and his shots, like those of the other FBI experts, were high and to the right of the target. The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact..3 In 1995 I conducted informal tests at my business, videotaping two people with substantial military and firearms experience, dry-firing the Mannlicher Carcano rifle at stationary targets (telephone poles) less than 90 yards away. Their instructions were to fire as rapidly as possible, after acquiring the target in the crosshairs. By replaying the video tapes at the standard 30 fps, it was easy to measure the amount of time they took. In very case, the shooters required over 3 seconds to carry out their assignments. They were able to get their time down to slightly less than 3 seconds, but only after I asked them to fire without aiming or attempting to acquire a target at all. This fact was corroborated yet again, by the HSCA when they recruited expert riflemen from the Washington D.C. police department to test their own theories about the timing of the Dealey Plaza shots. Based on acoustics evidence that was later discredited, the HSCA had contrived a theory that included two early shots fired by Oswald, within a span of just 1.65 seconds. Fully aware that even experts were unable to operate the weapon that quickly, they theorized that he could have fired faster by flipping the telescopic scope out of his way, and targeting through the iron sight at the end of the rifle barrel. This was a dubious theory at best, since it made little sense for a dedicated sniper to sacrifice the accuracy of a scope, when he had no reason at all to believe he would need to speed-fire the weapon. It made even less sense to imagine Oswald bothering to smuggle the scope into the depository and then remount it on his rifle (The scope, mounted on the rifle would not fit in the bag that he was claimed to have carried it in.), if he didn't intend to use it. But this became a moot question, when after repeated test firings, eight police sharpshooters and two committee staffers, aiming with both the telescopic scope and without it, were never able to hit their targets twice within that brief time span. There was just not enough time to operate the bolt action and acquire the target4 . The obvious conclusion then, is that the experts were correct; no-one, neither professionals, nor certainly, Oswald, was able to get off a successful shot within 2.3 or fewer, seconds. Accurate shots within less than 1.65 seconds of one another, would be beyond the abilities of even world class riflemen. At this point then, we indeed have a potential method for answering the question of whether the assassination could have been carried out by a single gunman. If shots were fired within less than 2.3 seconds of one another, we can confidently declare that at least two snipers were involved. But how could such a determination be made? How do we measure with certainty, the elapsed time between the shots? There are no known audio recordings of the attack, and the films taken by bystanders, were silent. In fact, among researchers, there has been universal agreement on the timing of only one shot that day. That was the one that caused the terrible and highly visible explosion of the President's head at Zapruder frame 313. As it turns out, the problem is not quite as difficult as it might appear, but we are going to need one more tool - a device to precisely measure the elapsed time between various, visible events that occurred during the attack. That will come in the form of what is probably the single most important piece of evidence in this case - the famous 8mm color film, taken by Abraham Zapruder. Zapruder was a dress manufacturer who had recently purchased a top of the line, Zoomatic Director series, Bell & Howell movie camera, which he intended to use to film President Kennedy when the motorcade arrived. With the help of Mary Sitzman, an employee whom he had asked to help steady him, Zapruder stood atop a four foot, concrete abutment in front of the pergola in Dealey Plaza, where he captured the entire assassination on film, including the explosive headshot that still shocks viewers today. Zapruder's view of the crime was so good, that his film became an accepted timing standard for the FBI as well as later researchers. His camera was found to run at a steady rate of 18.3 frames per second. With that knowledge, it is easy to make extremely accurate measurements of the time between various, visible events. For example, to calculate the time that elapsed between say, frame 133 and frame 187, we simply divide the number of elapsed frames, in this case 54, by 18.3. The math is quite simple: (187-133)/18.3= 2.95 seconds The Zapruder film has also been used to pinpoint the timing of many of the still photos taken that day. By examining the position of the limousine in a given photo and the orientation of its occupants, experts have been able to associate many of those photos with specific Zapruder frames. Perhaps the most critical of these pictures is one taken by Associated Press photographer James Altgens at precisely the equivalent of frame number 255. If we stop and think about it, those are really just matters of historical trivia. What is infinitely more important, and quite easily proven, is that shots were fired that day, which were totally inconsistent with a single assassin, using the alleged murder weapon. Though it was probably not the massive coup d'etats that some authors have suggested, President Kennedy was indeed, the victim of a conspiracy, which involved three snipers. We therefore know, that guilty men escaped prosecution for this crime. And we know that our government failed, in it's investigations. Robert Harris Flickr images How do i upload pictures from Flickr? I pressed on add image and then looked up images of Chemtrails so I could add a picture of Chemtrails, but it just says Flickr images (results) and there is no images shown.Wildesheer9876 19:38, September 26, 2014 (UTC)User:Wildesheer9876 :Well, you could save those images to your hard drive and upload them from there. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 21:05, September 26, 2014 (UTC) Well I've done that before, but I'm scared to keep doing that because I might get some kind of virusWildesheer9876 21:09, September 26, 2014 (UTC)User:Wildesheer9876 :Get a virus scanner program if you don't have one already, and make it scan every file you download before opening it. There are a few free but good ones like avast. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 21:15, September 26, 2014 (UTC) Admin rights I have a user asking me to make him an admin, but I can't find out how. Do you know how?Wildesheer9876 22:40, May 6, 2015 (UTC)User:Wildesheer9876 : Only members of the can assign admin/sysop rights, and I would recommend against giving them to anyone who hasn't made a significant number of edits (200-300) on this wiki yet. An inexperienced sysop can break a lot of things, even if they mean well, so it's not something for a new user with a handful of edits. As far as I can tell, AKaibni simply wants to protect some pages from vandalism, in which case he doesn't need full sysop rights. Ask him which pages those are and if you find that they have been vandalized in the past often from their history, just protect them yourself. :-) --Koveras Alvane (talk) 05:42, May 7, 2015 (UTC) Ok. So once I reach 200 edits, I can become an admin? --AKaibni (talk) 16:03, May 14, 2015 (UTC) :No, that's not how this works. If you make enough good quality edits, you will be considered a valuable contributor to this wiki; and if at some point later on, a necessity for a new administrator on this wiki arises, you will be among the candidates for adminship. Right now, however, I do not see such a necessity, considering that Wildesheer9876 is quite active. If you want to protect some pages, list them here or on Wildsheer's page and either I or Wildsheer will get around to protecting them. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:09, May 14, 2015 (UTC) Right now I want to protect the Kennedy Assassination and Illuminati pages, but at the same time, I want to be able to edit them. --AKaibni (talk) 01:18, May 15, 2015 (UTC) :Makes sense, given how often they were vandalized in the past. I have "semi-protected" both articles, meaning that only registered users like yourself can edit them now. If you have any other administrative requests, don't hesitate to ask me here. :) I am not making many edits on this wiki anymore, but I am on Wikia every day and I get notified if someone writes to me on this page. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 05:00, May 15, 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much! --AKaibni (talk) 17:23, May 15, 2015 (UTC) :You're welcome. :) --Koveras Alvane (talk) 19:31, May 15, 2015 (UTC)